It will be clear to anyone reading the
papers by Drs Murray and Matese that the trajectory described by the giant
planet in the Oort cloud was roughly circular, and at a great distance
from the Sun (1,2). When corresponding by e-mail with both of these
astronomers, they have made it plain to me that this is a major stumbling
block to equating the body each of them describe, to that described by
Sitchin (3,4). There is little necessity for either of them to explore
these issues, and so that's where the matter ends for them. But I
think I have shown sufficient correlation between Nibiru and their giant
planets, particularly as described by Dr Murray, to attempt to find an
explanation for this discrepancy. I think I have found that reason,
and the evidence for it comes from one of the central supporting academic
papers cited by Matese. Data from this paper is fundamental to our
understanding of what might have happened between the perturbation of the
comets millions of years ago, that were used to describe the giant planet's
orbit, and its present eccentric orbit.

If I am right, this will have important
consequences for 12th Planet research. But even if I'm not, this
paper is of central importance to our studies, because it contains results
of computer simulations of a Nibiru-type body, and the effects of this
body on the Solar system. It is unusual for me to concentrate particularly
on one paper in this way, but I suspect the reader will soon discover why
I have done so.

The Los Alamos
Computer Simulations

Some time before Murray and Matese looked
at the evidence for a massive Oort cloud body, J.G. Hills was researching
the possible presence of an even bigger entity on the very edge of the
Sun’s influence. This body was known as ‘Nemesis’, a black dwarf
star or low-mass star at 90,000 AU. It remains hypothetical, and
would certainly be a far more massive body than the one we are considering
in this book.

Hills
ran computer simulations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory of a 3 body
system, consisting of a Sun and Jupiter-like Planet couple, which became
subject to interaction with a massive body, either entering from interstellar
space, or perturbed from a quiet corner of the Sun’s comet clouds (5).
His findings are highly relevant to our debate, centring as they do on
the scenario described by Sitchin. Hills doesn’t make a conscious note of
this, of course, and to all intents and purposes, he seemed to be describing
low-mass stars and brown dwarfs, rather than smaller bodies, thus becoming
one step removed from the conventional 12th Planet debate. At that
time, Sitchin's analysis of Nibiru was for a much smaller body than a brown
dwarf.

However, it seems highly likely that Nibiru
is indeed a failed star, not a planet in the conventional sense, and we
should now look at Hills’ findings in this new light. One of the
first points Hills raises is that a body, at the sort of distances proposed
for Nemesis, is liable to be perturbed into an orbit that brings it through
the planetary solar system, by the action of passing stars. His mathematical modelling shows that this
potential effect is most likely to happen if the massive body lies at 20,000AU,
(a distance close to Matese’s estimate of 20,000AU for his massive planet):

"…There is a non-negligible
probability of Nemesis actually entering the planetary system as a result
of eccentricity changes induced by passing stars. Nemesis lies in
the outer edge of the classical Oort cloud at a semi-major axis of 90,000AU.
Any similar objects lying in the inner edge of the classical Oort cloud
at a semi-major axis of 20,000AU would have a much higher probability of
entering the planetary system." (5)

What Hills is saying is that the orbit
of a body lying at around 20,000AU distance from the Sun is essentially
unstable, a point noted in passing by Matese (2). Matese then
discussed 'oscultations' of such an orbit, but it is clear from Hill's
paper that he has something more drastic in mind. As Hills says,
"objects in the Oort cloud are severely perturbed by passing stars".
We cannot assume, therefore, that the findings of Murray and Matese,
derived from the beginnings of cometary journeys millions of years ago,
continue to describe the orbit of the massive body up to the present day.
Not only that, but the evidence from the comets’ movements is a fragmented
picture. It indicates a trend that points to the presence of this
massive body, but it does not present us with a cast-iron blue-print for
the body’s current position. If it had, we would already have detected
it, surely? There are approximations involved here, and a relatively
recent perturbation of Nibiru’s orbit would not lie outside the criteria
for meeting the data these two researchers have worked with. It might
also explain why it has defied detection since these papers came out in
1999, despite the other brown dwarf discoveries.

Drs Murray and Matese are describing Nibiru’s
passage through the Oort cloud over many millions of years, and have assumed
a continuation of that slow, circular motion. Upon that premise,
they have called into question a correlation with the ancient mythology
of the 12th Planet, as described by Sitchin (3,4). Yet Hills shows
us that the orbits they describe for the massive body are unstable,
and subject to radical change when affected by a passing star. It
seems to me that this might have occurred when the Sun passed by Sirius
several million years ago, that the massive gravity of the Type A star
Sirius A was sufficient to drag Nibiru into the planetary system, and change
its orbit to a highly elongated ellipse. If not the Sirius system, then
gigantic molecular clouds in Orion (6).

Conclusion 1 The circular
orbits described by Murray and Matese are unstable and subject to perturbation,
just like the comets.

In case this might seem too incredible,
I would like to explore the results of Hills’ computer simulations in some
depth. This may be somewhat of a dry discussion, but bear with me:

Hills recognises the general circularity
of the orbits of the known solar planets, and concludes from his data that
any body having passed through the solar system could not have exceeded
20 Jupiter masses:

"Because the change
in the eccentricities is proportional to the intruder mass Mi, any intrusions
of objects from the Oort cloud having masses less than about 0.02M* = 20
Jupiter masses would not have produced a noticeable effect on the orbits
of the planets." (5)

This provides an upper limit on the size
of such a body, ruling out Nemesis, a presumed black dwarf at the farthest
reaches of the solar system, as an interloper. Other sections of
the paper place a limit of 10 Jupiter masses on an intruder from the Oort
cloud, but this still remains consistent with the brown dwarf finding:
The body described by Murray and Matese is a ‘planet’, or brown dwarf ,
of only a few Jupiter masses. Such a body will not radically alter
the general circularity of the orbits of the solar planets, unless a collision
is involved. This is of fundamental importance, because it shows
that a brown dwarf could pass within the planetary orbits without unduly
affecting them.

Conclusion 2 A brown dwarf
of less than 10 Jupiter masses could have regularly passed through the
planetary solar system, and the known planets would still appear as they
do today

Somewhat
remarkably, Hills describes a minimum semi-minor axis radius of 5AU, within
the radius of the orbit of Jupiter, to clarify his point. This just
so happens to be the ‘place of the crossing’ of Nibiru as described by
the Sumerian texts! Having eliminated the possible movement of Nemesis
through our system, did Hills systematically turn his attention to Sitchin’s
work, and find a correlation? This appears to be the unspoken message.
Of course, Hills might have chosen the radius of the Jupiter like planet
to simplify his calculations, but this seems an arbitrary point.
Either way, the coincidence helps us to understand how Nibiru's orbit came
into being.

The computer simulations sometimes showed
that 'temporarily bound triple systems’ resulted from the movement of the
disturbed Oort cloud body into the planetary system. As Hills notes:

"…The integration
continues until one of the three objects is thrown into either a hyperbolic
orbit, or a bound orbit with a semi-major axis larger than 350 times that
of the inner binary, or until 500,000 integrations steps have been completed."
(5)

As Jupiter lies at approximately 5AU distance,
the new orbital semi-major axis of Nibiru could approximate to 350 times
that, or about 2000AU.

Conclusion 3 Nibiru's current
aphelion position could be as distant as 2000AU

So Nibiru, if it had been disturbed from
its circular orbit in the Oort cloud, might now have an aphelion distance
of less than 10% of the values determined by Murray and Matese. That
the distance is an order of magnitude less allows Nibiru to traverse a
highly elongated elliptical orbit in about 3600 years, without being ejected
from the solar system. This was another major stumbling block as far as
Dr Murray was concerned (3).

Hills describes a number of results from
his simulations that are consistent with relatively stable temporarily
bound triple systems forming after incursions of a massive Oort cloud body
into the planetary system. This provides a theoretical model for
Nibiru’s orbital change, allowing us to integrate the brown dwarf finding
with the 12th Planet theory.

This theoretical work thus underpins a
bridge between Sitchin’s 12th Planet theory and the evidence for a brown
dwarf in the Oort cloud. Yes, the brown dwarf was describing a slow,
circular orbit at the time the comets were perturbed, but it has since
been perturbed itself, into a radically different orbit. The
one described by the Sumerians. Impossible? Hills doesn’t seem
to think so. Do I have evidence for this? Yes, I think I do,
in that the change of Nibiru’s orbit, returning it to the planetary system
after many, many millions of years caused our climate to change.
The evidence is in our geological records, and involves the puzzling advent
of long-period ice-ages. Again, the basis of this conclusion lies
in this ground-breaking paper by Hills, and I shall explore this idea in
depth in a subsequent posting. This has to do with the 'binding energies'
of the planets, and how their orbital radii are affected by the new orbit
attained by the interloper. I suspect that this simbiotic relation
between the Earth and Nibiru is what the Sumerians meant by the 'Bond Heaven-Earth',
and why the ancient world put such store on an accurate calculation of
the calendar.

Conclusion 4 The Earth's
orbit and environment were affected by the new eccentric orbit through
a dynamic interplay of planetary 'binding energies', and our geological
record itself indicates the return of Nibiru from the Oort Cloud

Hills describes these new triple systems
(for our studies, the Sun, Jupiter and Nibiru as a brown dwarf) as temporary.
They seem to be unstable as well, and I suggest that Nibiru's orbit is
again subject to change over time, decaying and losing its energy.
Nibiru will again return to the outer Oort cloud, and this model might
show that Nibiru has had an oscillating orbit for as long as it has been
in our solar system. This is what is meant by the term 'oscultation',
as used by Matese. Hills simply shows how an highly eccentric orbit
for the Oort cloud object could be derived from such an orbital change.
I suspect that these 'oscultations' then account for the long period Ice
Ages, occurring when Nibiru is perturbed into a temporary eccentric, elliptical
orbit that brings it into the planetary solar system. When it is
describing a slow circular orbit, we have a warmer climate, often for hundreds
of millions of years.

Furthermore, I think the unusually quick
end of our current Ice Age, that has lasted only 4 million years, indicates
that Nibiru's orbit is already decaying and lengthening, and that the 'bond
Heaven-Earth' is slowly deteriorating. In turn this explains why
Nibiru's orbit has lengthened (3760BC to 25AD = 3784 years), and why ancient
accounts describe our calendar year as having been slightly longer (Thoth's
lost days (7)). As Nibiru's orbit lengthens, and it begins its gradual
return to a slow, circular orbit in the Oort cloud, our orbit gains binding
energy, our orbital radius contracts, and our climate warms.

Conclusion 5 Nibiru's orbit
is currently lengthening, and our climate is subsequently warming once
again

This change might also indicate why the
Anunnaki have left our world now. As Nibiru's orbit has decayed,
their chances of seeing Nibiru move within the orbit of Jupiter during
the next perihelion passage decrease. They might not want to lose
the chance to get back home again!

So why should this lengthening of the orbit
have occurred at all? I suspect that the same celestial event that
brought about the Flood 13-14,000 years ago altered Nibiru's unstable 'temporary'
orbit sufficiently to again change the bond between the Sun and Nibiru.
This might have been a close passage by Jupiter, for instance, perturbing
the elliptical orbit, and creating a sufficiently large disruption to the
Sun-Jupiter magnetosphere interaction to bring about the Earth-changes
involved. I will be exploring this in depth later.

Stable Planetary
Systems that are Massive

It had been suspected that ‘failed stars’,
or brown dwarfs could not exist in the midst of stable planetary systems.
The argument goes that the gravitational effect of such massive bodies
in the planetary system would cause the other planets to become unstable
and begin careering around. A discovery by Marcy’s team regarding a star
system some 123 light years away has brought that into question. The system,
poetically named HD168443, contains a giant planet that is 17 times the
mass of Jupiter. Normally, the astronomers would classify this is a brown
dwarf, but this body’s close proximity to its star has brought that assumption
into question (8). To be circling the star in the relatively close orbit
involved, the body should have formed by gas accretion, yet is far more
massive than this model should allow:

"This is one of
the most exciting discoveries yet," said Douglas N C Lin, a planetary formation
expert from the University of California, Santa Cruz, who is not a member
of the Marcy team. "This discovery has profound theoretical implications."
Although the planetary object is 17 times more massive than Jupiter, Lin
said, "it is possible that it formed in the same way that Jupiter formed
in our solar system". Planets are thought to form by gravitationally attracting
gas and dust in a cloud surrounding a developing star. But planets that
become too large can destabilise a planetary system. Butler said the HD168443
system is "extremely stable".(9)

To complicate matters still further, another
massive planet, this time 7 times as massive as Jupiter, enjoys a circular
orbit within the orbit of the first. Yet the overall system is described
as ‘extremely stable’. This system will send many astronomers back to the
drawing board in an effort to figure out how these planets formed and how
they enjoy such stable orbits as close as they are to their host star.
This example serves to proves that gargantuan planets such as these, that
defy classification, can surprise astronomers. Similarly, a massive planet
in orbit around our Sun need not have the detrimental effect on the rest
of the system that many would provisionally assume. This recent finding
seems to bear Hills out.